Homology, homoplasy, novelty, and behavior

Abstract

Richard Owen coined the modern definition of homology in 1843. Owen's conception of homology was pre-evolutionary, nontransformative (homology maintained basic plans or archetypes), and applied to the fully formed structures of animals. I sketch out the transition to an evolutionary approach to homology in which all classes of similarity are interpreted against the single branching tree of life, and outline the evidence for the application of homology across all levels and features of the biological hierarchy, including behavior. Owen contrasted homology with analogy. While this is not incorrect it is a pre-evolutionary contrast. Lankester [Lankester [1870] Journal of Natural History, 6 (31), 34-43] proposed homoplasy as the class of homology applicable to features formed by independent evolution. Today we identify homology, convergence, parallelism, and novelties as patterns of evolutionary change. A central issue in homology [Owen [1843] Lectures on comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons in 1843. London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans] has been whether homology of features-the "same" portion of the brain in different species, for example-depends upon those features sharing common developmental pathways. Owen did not require this criterion, although he observed that homologues often do share developmental pathways (and we now know, often share gene pathways). A similar situation has been explored in the study of behavior, especially whether behaviors must share a common structural, developmental, neural, or genetic basis to be classified as homologous. However, and importantly, development and genes evolve. As shown with both theory and examples, morphological and behavioral features of the phenotype can be homologized as structural or behavioral homologues, respectively, even when their developmental or genetic bases differ (are not homologous).